Here are my top 5:
1. Sarah Palin (although I don't think she will run)
2. Ted Cruz (could almost be a tie for 1st)
3. Scott Walker (although I need to hear more about where he stands on national issues. A couple of his latest statements concern me).
4. Bobby Jindal (although he seems to lack the ability to excite people)
5. Rand Paul (because he's not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio)
6. Rick Perry (because he's not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio)
There's a big drop off from 2 to 3 in my book, and an even bigger one from 2 to 4.
Where do you stand?
If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.
32 comments:
I guess I just gave you my two cent on the last post, but as an aside, I doubt that at least a few of the people you mentioned will run even thought they are polling OK.
If none of them run, we're doomed. The usual suspects will either get slaughtered by Hillary (conservatives stay home) or will govern like a Democrat.
As to your list. Just curious as to what Mr. Walker said that concerns you. Hey, if Mr. Jindal is the nominee, I'll support him and campaign for him, but the fact that he fails to excite people is a serious problem. Neither Mr. Romney nor Mr. Ryan could excite people and as a result in part, they lost to the Obama/Biden ticket.
Walker gave a convoluted answer on amnesty. I need to know where he stands on that. In addition, it seems as though he's taking Christie's side in the Paul/Christie squabble. There was something else too, but it escapes me. Nothing about the aforementioned was exactly clear, which is still why I have him as one of my favorites.
As for Jindal.....at least he's a proven conservative. Being boring wasnt Romney's only fault.
OJ,
Your list from the other thread. Hope you don't mind....
Ohio JOE said...
In terms of popular vote/ Power rankings Here is my list as of today:
1. Dr. Paul
2. Mr. Christie
3. Mr. Rubio
4. Mr. Ryan
5. Mr. Bush
6. Mr. Huckabee
7. Mr. Crucz
8. Dr. Rice
9. Mrs. Palin
10. Mr. Santorum
11. Mr. Jindal
12. Mr. West
My favorites
1. Mrs. Palin
2. Dr. Paul
3. Mr. Walker
4. Mr. Rubio
5. Mrs. Martinez
August 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM
I get the impression that amnesty is not a big issue for you, since you have Rubio in your top five.
I believe that the GOP can only win a national election by maximizing turnout among the base in the current political climate. You know Hillary will.
I'll be voting for Mitt Romney in 2016, if we still have functioning government.
Katrina,
Are you suggesting that you'll write him in if need be?
I'm still deciding...REALLY.
As to power rankings RIGHT NOW:
1. Chris Christie
2. Rand Paul
3. Paul Ryan
4. Marco Rubio
5. Ted Cruz
6. Jeb Bush
Then a BIG DROP to the rest of the field.
I still think Jim DeMint is a possible Candidate in 16. Just a hunch.
I do like what I'm seeing in Ted Cruz. No doubt he is probably the smartest in the group. That doesn't necessarily make him the best. I'm also still holding a soft spot for Paul Ryan.
Palin?...hahahaha...
RWN, It is possible we'll be on the same side in the GOP primary..wouldn't that be something?
At least as of now, Mr. Demint does not seem to be gaining traction outside of S. Carolina.
RW, no amnesty is not a big deal for me. I am against the Gang of 8 deal, but I for one do not let it get me sidetracked.
"RWN, It is possible we'll be on the same side in the GOP primary..wouldn't that be something?'" Well the political landscape continues to change.
Oaky, the uploader states her preference- in 1st place, is Sarah palin. I'll repeat that, as I'm sure a few readers will think that I'm joking again: The uploader's 1st choice is Sarah Palin.
Well, there is no point in even continuing trying to educate someone there.
"I still think Jim DeMint is a possible Candidate in 16. Just a hunch."
I won't say too much as the author of that drivel happens to be the mod of the board lol. But, he's also added " I'm also still holding a soft spot for Paul Ryan."
File under: there is officially no hope for some people.
"Scott Walker (although I need to hear more about where he stands on national issues.)
He's a governor, so you'll be waiting a long time. Something along the lines of sitting-on-the-fence (no immigration pun) and no-having-guts to say where they stand, so they can have some sort of armo in primaries.
But that's those *lovely governors* for you.
Hate to say it but right now for me it's none of the above. That's right, no one is making me feel good about their candidacy. You'll need to ask me again down the road when it really matters. And for what it's worth, I'll be the first to say we do not need to have a female candidate to run against the opposition. That would be a mistake.
RomneyMan,
Rather than throw barbs at the others, how about sharing your list?
My guess is that it look something like this....
1. Obama's third term
2. Hillary
3. Biden
Did I miss anyone?
I am not in position to give your typical impulsive (and thus wrong) predictions as of yet. My proven excellence comes from analysing many fronts, and, considering it will be about 1.7 or so years until the players start throwing their hat in the ring (i.e, feb- june 2015, it's too early- even for an expert like me- to be on the money.
However, considering who amonsget yours and others list(s) that could even begin to think of beating Hillary, currently only CC would come anywhere close. This is not any preferred choice, but current reality. Hillay v anyone is a virtual guaranteed landslide. Christe- currently- would be the only one on your list that could make it remotely less depressing a Hillary coronation.
These are not predictions. Just early preferences that are certainly subject to change. Nothing is written in stone here.
Christie? WTF? You comment on certain people not looking presidential for the mass media, and you choose a guy who's at least 150 lbs overweight as the best option? Hahahaha....
You're so out of it it's painful.
"You comment on certain people not looking presidential for the mass media, and you choose a guy who's at least 150 lbs overweight as the best option?" Incorrect. It's linked to charisma. That certain X factor that, unfortunately matters. Ted Cruz comes across like a smarmy salesman. There is no 'wider charisma' no 'likability' beyond ideologues wanting goldwater '16. Cruz, just on watching his for a minute, has an immediate 'would you buy a used car from this person' *quality*. The fact that he looks like count von count just compounds it. Christie has charisma. His weight (which, IMO, will be much less in 2 or so years) kind of goes with the 'appeal' and character.
Rubio also has the X factor. We're not on about policy here, we're on about that extra something that is laso intangible, but it's 'there'. Muppet electorates go for charisma. OB is a rock star of charisma. That's one of the chief reasons why he was re-elected (and the naff Romney campaign etc etc). Don't underestimate the X factor and 'knowing jay-Z *qualities* that appeal to muppets.
Fortunately, you won't be part of the nominating process anyway. And you remind me of those who cited Romney's presidential "look" as a selling point.
Not only is Christie fat, but he's short! So is Rubio. Christie's a blowhard, and would not make it through an entire election campaign without a few embarrassing temper tantrums. Not just no to Christie. Hell no!
Okay, but recall that I am invariable correct.
Obama is not a rock star, he looks like a little kid in front of the cameras, not presidential at all. His only claim to fame is he is the entitlement president, he gave people free gifts in exchange for votes. He told people what they wanted to hear without ever delivering the goods in his first term and his second term is even worse than before. An illiterate society voted him into office. He is neck-deep with scandals and is wasting the taxpayers money with this endless campaigning. As with most rock stars, he is all show and no substance.
I haven't followed your predictions. I generally don't look to Democrats for advice on who should be nominated by the GOP. That said, you can look back and see that almost everything played out the way I thought it would in the last general election. There was a brief moment (after the first debate) when I thought Romney would win. That feeling was short lived.
Joel, I agree with everything in your last comment. That said, a conservative base turnout like we saw in 2004 probably would have gotten it done. I voted for Mitt, so don't shoot the messenger.
"That said, you can look back and see that almost everything played out the way I thought it would in the last general election. There was a brief moment (after the first debate) when I thought Romney would win. That feeling was short lived. "
I actually second that.
"That said, a conservative base turnout like we saw in 2004 probably would have gotten it done."
And note that W was hardly Goldwater PLUS the MSM 'blocking' any conservative winning a general? '04 wasn't that long ago, meaning W won with the same MSM. That year it came down to what happened last year- an opponent who did not excite enough to win V an incumbent (a massive advantage) running a great campaign.
"I haven't followed your predictions. I generally don't look to Democrats for advice on who should be nominated by the GOP" Well said!
OJ,
Posted just today re: Walker.
http://therightscoop.com/walker-other-governors-arguing-against-shutting-down-government-over-obamacare/
He lost his balls, apparently.
Or has a brain perhaps?
A different brain than the one that shut the state government down two years ago......
I am excited about this bench. I want to hear from pretty much everyone at this point: Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, Christie, Walker, Kasich. What happened to Pence? He might be good. And then those that no one is talking about: Heineman, Corbett, Haley, McDonnell.
None with the private sector experience or the sheer organizational ability of a Romney unfortunately (now, as always, just another bunch of long-time politicians jockeying), but I will grant that there may be some better politicians in the bunch, i.e. ability to stump speech more naturally and slick-like. I only hope that whoever it is can do as good a job at creating sharp contrast with the Democrats. (Watch Carter/Reagan debate, and compare it with Obama/Romney. Romney's contrast actually clearer, by any standard.)
Still licking my 2012 wounds.
RW, it was the media who cited Romney's looks as a selling point, not Republicans. It was part of their strategy to keep people in the dark about his real qualities. They said it so much it started to gag me.
-Martha
Post a Comment